groups, networks, and organizations
TRANSCRIPT
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 1/30
Groups, Networks, and
Organizations
How do these groups affect the
individual? How does theindividual affect these groups?
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 2/30
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 3/30
Groups Within Organizations
Two or more people who interact to meet a
shared goal
A shared sense of purpose sets a group apart
from just a gathering of people
Are motivated to participate in the activities of
the group
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 4/30
Social Groups
Social groups are collections of people who
share a sense of common identity and
regularity interact with each other on the
basis of shared expectations. These social
groups shape nearly every experience in our
lives. Among the types of social groups
there are:
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 5/30
Reference groups provide a standard bywhich we judge ourselves in terms of how
we think we appear to others. – Cooley called this the “looking glass self”
Group size affects group dynamics
– Small groups are more intimate and have fewer numbers of relationships
– Large groups are more stable with far morerelationships and complexity
– Groups of 12 or more usually have some formalstructure
– Smallest group is a dyad
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 6/30
Leaders are able to influence other membersof the group to what they want
– Transactional leaders involves routine leadership
concerned with getting a job done
– Transformation leaders involve changing the very
nature of the group itself
– Can you think of examples of each?
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 7/30
Research supports the idea that individuals in thegroup are highly susceptible to group pressure
Solomon Asch (1952) – Going along with the group
– Participants were shown a standard line and then three
comparison lines. Their task was simply to say which of the three lines next to the standard line match it. Whenconfederates gave false answers first, 75% of participantsconformed by giving the wrong answer.
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 8/30
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 9/30
-The participants — the real subject and the
confederates — were all seated in a classroom
where they were told to announce their judgment
of the length of several lines drawn on a series of displays. They were asked which line was longer
than the other, which were the same length, etc.
The confederates had been prearranged to all give
an incorrect answer to the tests.
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 10/30
- While most subjects answered correctly, manyshowed extreme discomfort, and a high proportion
(32%) conformed to the erroneous majority viewof the others in the room when there were at leastthree confederates present, even when themajority said that two lines different in length byseveral inches were the same length. When theconfederates were not unanimous in their
judgment, subjects were much more likely todefect than when the confederates all agreed.Control subjects with no exposure to a majorityview had no trouble giving the correct answer.
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 11/30
"I am, in plainer words, a bundle of
prejudices—made up of likings anddislikings—the veriest thrall of
sympathies, apathies, and
antipathies."
- Nineteenth century English author
Charles Lamb
"I have no race prejudices,
and I think I have no color prejudices nor creed
prejudices. Indeed, I know it.
I can stand any society.”
-- Mark Twain
Intergroup Relations
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 12/30
North vs. South
East vs. WestU.S. vs. Iraq
Racism
Sexism
Heterosexism
Rich vs. poor
Elitism Ageism
Serbs vs. Croats
Darfur’s Fur, Masalit,
and Zaghawa vs.the
Baggara
ALL Examples of
US vs . Them
Issues
Does membership in onegroup require rejection of
other groups?
How does groupmembership change
member’s perceptions?
How can conflicts bereduced?
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 13/30
What Interpersonal Factors Disrupt Relations
Between Groups?
The Robbers Cave
Experiment
– Conducted by
Muzafer andCarolyn Sherif
and colleagues
in 1950s
– Two groups of young boys:
The Rattlers and
the Eagles
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 14/30
Scenes from theRobbers Cave
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 15/30
Scenes from theRobbers Cave
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 16/30
Scenes from theRobbers Cave
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 17/30
The Robbers Cave Experiment
Result: Reactions to conflict escalated
from exclusion to verbal abuse to
discrimination to violence
What caused the conflict between
these two groups?
Interpersonal factors Cognitive factors
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 18/30
What Interpersonal Factors DisruptRelations Between Groups?
Competition and conflict
– Realistic conflict theory: competition over scarce
resources
– Discontinuity effect: Insko, Schopler, et al. findgroups are more competitive when playing the
Prisoner’s Dilemma Game (PDG)
• Greed
• Identifiability• Fear
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 19/30
What Interpersonal Factors DisruptRelations Between Groups?
Norms and conflict
– Norm of reciprocity and conflict spirals
– Cultural norms• Chagnon’s studies of the Yanomanö
• Collectivistic and individualistic societies
– Subcultural norms: Collectivism,
individualism, and conflict
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 20/30
What Interpersonal Factors DisruptRelations Between Groups?
Power and domination
– Economic versus militaristic (coercive)
exploitation
– Insko’s study of laboratory microsocieties
Negative affect and conflict
– Frustration-aggression and conflict
– Scapegoating and intergroup conflict
Group hate (Sternberg)
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 21/30
What are the Cognitive Foundations
of Conflict Between Groups? Ingroup-outgroup bias
– Favoring the ingroup over the outgroup:
• “we are better than them”
• ethnocentrism
– Ingroup favoritism tends to be stronger thanoutgroup rejection
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 22/30
What are the Cognitive Foundationsof Conflict Between Groups?
Ingroup-outgroup bias (cont.)
– Conflict and categorization increases
• cohesion of ingroup
• differentiation between groups
• doublestandard thinking
• outgroup moral exclusion (Staub)
• group hate
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 23/30
What are the Cognitive Foundationsof Conflict Between Groups?
Cognitive consequences of categorization
– Outgroup homogeneity bias
– Law of small numbers – Group attribution error
– Ultimate attribution error
– Linguistic group bias
– Stereotypes
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 24/30
What are the Cognitive Foundations ofConflict Between Groups?
Social categorization may be sufficient to
create conflict
– Tajfel and Turner’s minimal intergroupsituation finds bias
– Social identity theory and the ingroup-
outgroup bias/self-esteem link.
– Instinctive bases of intergroup discrimination
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 25/30
How can Intergroup Relations be
Improved?
Intergroup contact
– Contact hypothesis: Contact is more effective
when
• it creates cooperation between the groups
• participants are equal in status
• interaction is intimate (stimulated
friendships across groups)
• norms encourage cooperation
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 26/30
Intergroup contact (cont.)
– Pettigrew and Tropp's review: contact is more effective
in work and organizational settings than in recreationaland tourist settings.
– Robbers Cave contact
• Initially contact between the groups failed
• Contact worked when groups worked toward
superordinate goals
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 27/30
Cognitive approaches to conflict reduction
– Decategorization
– Recategorization: common ingroup identity model
– Cross-categorization
– Controlling stereotyped thinking
Conflict management: interpersonal skill trainingprocedures
– Jigsaw learning groups
– Constructive controversy procedures
– GRIT: Graduated and Reciprocal Initiative in Tensionin Tension Reduction
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 28/30
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (1986)
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is a classic case of groupthink. The Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff on
January 28, 1986 (Vaughan 33). The launch had been
originally scheduled for January 22, but a series of problems
pushed back the launch date. Scientists and engineersthroughout NASA were eager to get the mission underway.
The day before the launch an engineer brought up a concern
about the o-rings in the booster rockets. Several conference
calls were held to discuss the problem and the decision to go
ahead with the launch was agreed upon. The group involved
in making the Challenger decision met several of the
symptoms of groupthink. They ignored warnings that
contradicted the group’s goal.
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 29/30
- The goal was to get the launch off as soon as possible, and itended up being a fatal mistake. They also suffered from afeeling of invulnerability, up until that point NASA had analmost spotless safety record. They also failed tocompletely examine the risks of their decision; they played
it off as if it was nothing important. Another factor thathad suppressed the few engineers who were "going against
the grain" and "sounding the alarm" was that all eyeswere on NASA not to delay the launch and that Congresswas seeking to earmark large funding to NASA given the
large amount of publicity on the Teacher in Spaceprogram. These misjudgements led to the tragic loss of
several astronauts, and a huge black mark of NASA’s nearperfect safety record.
7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 30/30
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do
that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and
toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of
destruction....The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting
hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we
shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.